IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
“H” BENCH: MUMBAI
BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
AND SHRI R.S. PADVEKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
ITA No.3376/Mum/2010
(Assessment Year: 2005-06)
M/s. Baker Technical Services Private Limited,
Planet, 2nd Floor, 10,
Bandra (W),
Mumbai -400 050 ......…. Appellant
Vs
ITO -9(1)(2),
Mumbai .....… Respondent
PAN: AAACB 3478 L
Appellant by: Shri K. Gopal
Respondent by: Shri V.V. Shastri
Date of Hearing: 04.08.2011
Date of Pronouncement: 19.08.2011
O R D E R
PER R.S. PADVEKAR, JM:
In this appeal the assessee has challenged the impugned order of the Ld. CIT (A)-19, Mumbai dated 22.03.2010 for the A.Y. 2005-06.
The assessee has raised the following grounds:-
“1. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as “CIT (A)”] erred in passing the order dated 22.03.2010 upholding the order of the Ld. AO without affording the Appellant proper opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the order dated 22.03.2010 passed by the Ld. CIT (A) is in breach of principles of natural justice and hence, the same may be quashed and set aside.
2. The Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the action of the AO in making an addition of Rs. 9,32,894/- by determining the annual letting value of the property at Rs. 13,50,000/- as against the actual rent received of Rs. 78,000/-, without appreciating the fact and circumstances of the case. The Appellant, therefore, prays that the addition of Rs. 9,32,894/- to the Income from House Property is not at all justified and the same may be quashed.
3. The Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in denying the set off of brought forward losses of earlier years amounting to Rs. 3,005/- without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case. The Appellant prays that the Ld. CIT (A0 is not at all justified in disallowing the set off of brought losses of earlier years amounting to Rs. 3,005/- and hence, the same may be deleted.
4. The Appellant denies any liability to pay the interest under section 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Hence, the same are not leviable.”
2. The assessee is in the trading of shares and securities. The assessee filed the return of income for the A.Y. 2005-06 declaring total income at Rs. 97,900/-. The assessment was completed u/s.143(3) of the Act determining the total income at Rs. 9,91,307/-. The assessee challenged the assessment order before the Ld. CIT (A) by raising the different grievances. The Ld. CIT (A) disposed off the assessee’s appeal ex-parte dismissing the same.
3. We have heard the parties. We find that, as per order of the Ld. CIT (A) the appeal was posted for hearing on 8.02.2010. On the said date, the assessee sought the adjournment. Again the appeal was fixed on
4. In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for the statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on this day of
Sd/- Sd/-
(P.M. JAGTAP) (R.S. PADVEKAR)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Mumbai, Date:
Copy to:-
1) The Appellant.
2) The Respondent.
3) The CIT (A)–19, Mumbai.
4) The CIT-V, Mumbai.
5) The D.R. “H” Bench, Mumbai.
By Order
/ / True Copy / /
Asstt. Registrar
I.T.A.T., Mumbai
*Chavan
Sr No
|
Episode of an order |
Date |
Initials |
Concerned |
1 |
Draft dictated on |
02.08.2011 |
|
Sr.PS |
2 |
Draft placed before author |
02.08.2011 |
|
Sr.PS |
3 |
Draft proposed & placed before the second Member |
|
|
JM/AM |
4 |
Draft discussed/approved by Second Member |
|
|
JM/AM |
5 |
Approved Draft comes to the Sr.PS/PS |
|
|
Sr.PS/PS |
6 |
Kept for pronouncement on |
|
|
Sr.PS/PS |
7 |
File sent to the Bench Clerk |
|
|
Sr.PS/PS |
8 |
Date on which file goes to the Head Clerk |
|
|
|
9 |
Date of dispatch of Order |
|
|
|